Mary Hamilton, Respondent. v. << (1997)

 The Surrogate erred in denying the petition to admit to probate the last will and testament of Bernard Sidney Hinman.   The will leaves the testator's entire estate to proponent, one of decedent's eight children.   Proponent met her burden of proving that the testator possessed testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271, rearg. denied 67 N.Y.2d 647, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 490 N.E.2d 558).   The subscribing witnesses testified that decedent was alert and rational and that he understood what he was doing when he drafted and signed the will (see, Matter of Kumstar, supra, at 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271;  Matter of Buckten, 178 A.D.2d 981, 982, 578 N.Y.S.2d 754, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 752, 587 N.Y.S.2d 904, 600 N.E.2d 631;  Matter of Hedges, 100 A.D.2d 586, 588, 473 N.Y.S.2d 529;  Matter of Alberts, 87 A.D.2d 671, 448 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 57 N.Y.2d 607, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 442 N.E.2d 69).   Proponent also presented undisputed evidence that decedent was self-sufficient and had always managed his own financial affairs (see, Matter of Burack, 201 A.D.2d 561, 607 N.Y.S.2d 711;  Matter of Gearin, 132 A.D.2d 799, 801, 517 N.Y.S.2d 339, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 613, 524 N.Y.S.2d 432, 519 N.E.2d 343;  Matter of Bush, 85 A.D.2d 887, 888, 446 N.Y.S.2d 759).   While decedent postponed making a will until he was gravely ill, “[t]he will was not the result of a sudden impulse but of a definite purpose” (Matter of Eno, 196 App.Div. 131, 150, 187 N.Y.S. 756).   Proponent presented uncontroverted proof establishing that the disposition of the estate under the will is consistent with decedent's longstanding desire to provide for proponent, who cared for decedent during his illness and lacked the financial security enjoyed by her siblings (see, Matter of Santamorina, 213 N.Y.S.2d 555;  see also, Matter of Horton, 26 Misc.2d 843, 845, 203 N.Y.S.2d 978, affd. 13 A.D.2d 506, 214 N.Y.S.2d 653;  Matter of Donohue, 199 App.Div. 466, 470, 191 N.Y.S. 797).

 The fact that the will contains a provision that “the money in the Credit Union goes to [proponent]” is insufficient to support the Surrogate's determination that decedent lacked testamentary capacity.   It is uncontested that decedent closed his only credit union account prior to executing the will and, in any event, the bequest is unnecessary in light of the provision leaving the entire estate to proponent.   Nevertheless, decedent's apparent confusion with respect to that bequest, without more, is insufficient to support the Surrogate's inference that decedent did not understand the nature and extent of the property in his estate (see, Matter of Kumstar, supra, at 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271;  see also, Matter of Alberts, supra;  cf., Matter of Delmar, 243 N.Y. 7, 14, 152 N.E. 448, rearg. denied 243 N.Y. 595, 154 N.E. 620;  Matter of Fish, 134 A.D.2d 44, 522 N.Y.S.2d 970;  Matter of Slade, 106 A.D.2d 914, 483 N.Y.S.2d 513).

Decree unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted.

MEMORANDUM: